US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7753

On June 04 2017 09:07 LegalLord wrote:
Well maybe it was the idea of a ban that just scared em off and convinced them to go attack Europe instead?

On June 04 2017 13:05 On_Slaught wrote:


Epic failure and ignorance. Wonder how the acting solicitor general geeks about this. Honestly I don't think they will even take the case at this point.

On June 04 2017 06:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Hence Solar farms, wind farms, charging stations powered by solar, battery exchange stations powered by solar and so on.

On June 04 2017 16:15 Slydie wrote:


That is not cheap energy. The construction and maintenance cost is simply too high, and wind, sun and waves are all too unreliable, and need big backup systems. The whole green-energy sector is still financed by subsidies and investors, not actual profit. Higher fuel prices will change that at some point, though.

On June 04 2017 17:31 Diavlo wrote:

That's not true. Wind power is profitable and Solar is really close to be. They are more expensive than fossil fuel of course, but if you put them against one another then you can't take out state subsidies out of comparison because those subsidies are meant to balance the cost of fossil fuel in other area (such as health, energy autonomy, foreign relation and environmental strain).

On June 04 2017 16:15 Slydie wrote:


That is not cheap energy. The construction and maintenance cost is simply too high, and wind, sun and waves are all too unreliable, and need big backup systems. The whole green-energy sector is still financed by s8ubsidies and investors, not actual profit. Higher fuel prices will change that at some point, though.

On June 05 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
Arguing intent of the legislature/executive branch was to make an unconstitutional law/order should be a nearly impossible legal argument. But Trump makes the impossible seem simple.

I am convinced that Trump is so out of touch with reality he wouldn't even know when he was doing something illegal.

Dems want Hillary Clinton to leave spotlight


Democrats say they’d like Hillary Clinton to take a cue from former President Obama and step out of the spotlight.

They say her string of remarks explaining her stunning loss in November coupled with the public remarks blaming the Democratic National Committee for the defeat — which many took as also critical of Obama — are hurting the party and making the 2016 candidate look bitter.

The Hill interviewed more a dozen Democrats about Clinton’s remarks, including many staunch Clinton supporters and former aides.

They said they understood the need for Clinton to explain what happened in the election, and many also empathized with Clinton’s anger over former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of a probe into her private email server.

But they also unanimously said Clinton needs to rethink her public blaming tour.
“Good God, what is she doing?” one longtime aide wondered after watching Clinton at the Recode conference in California on Wednesday. “She's apparently still really, really angry. I mean, we all are. The election was stolen from her, and that's how she feels.

“But to go out there publicly again and again and talk about it? And then blame the DNC?” the aide wondered. "It's not helpful to Democrats. It's not helpful to the country, and I don't think it's helpful to her.”

Former Obama aides are among those scratching their heads over Clinton’s strategy.

At the Recode conference, she said she had inherited nothing from a “bankrupt” Democratic Party led by Obama for eight years.

“If she is trying to come across as the leader of the angry movement of what happened in 2016, then she's achieving it,” said one former senior aide to Obama. “But part of the problem she had was she didn't have a vision for the Democratic Party, and she needs to now take a break and let others come to the forefront.”

On June 05 2017 01:25 LegalLord wrote:
Trump has already killed off his own EO. I don't know if he will try again but it definitely won't pass the courts at this point. It's already been done twice.

While the court acknowledged the President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) to enter the Order and also acknowledged that the national security reasons given on the face of the Order were legitimate, the court refused to apply Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), which held that courts are precluded from “look[ing] behind” “facially legitimate and bona fide” exercises of executive discretion in the immigration context to discern other possible purposes, id. at 770. Relying on statements made by candidate Trump during the presidential campaign, the district court construed the Executive Order to be directed against Muslims because of their religion and held therefore that it likely violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I conclude that the district court seriously erred (1) by refusing to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandel; (2) by fabricating a new proposition of law — indeed, a new rule — that provides for the consideration of campaign statements to recast a later-issued executive order; and (3) by radically extending Supreme Court Establishment Clause precedents. The district court’s approach is not only unprecedented, it is totally unworkable and inappropriate under any standard of analysis. [...]

Because of their nature, campaign statements are unbounded resources by which to find intent of various kinds. They are often short-hand for larger ideas; they are explained, modified, retracted, and amplified as they are repeated and as new circumstances and arguments arise. And they are often ambiguous. A court applying the majority’s new rule could thus have free reign to select whichever expression of a candidate’s developing ideas best supports its desired conclusion.

On June 05 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:
I find great cause to fear for the circuit court's effects on campaign speech in the future. Hopefully, the justices of the Supreme Court clarify such a radical departure from Supreme Court precedent in Mandel and others.